CVE-2021-29248
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedBTCPay Server through 1.0.7.0 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by failure to set the Secure flag for a cookie.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceBTCPay Server through version 1.0.7.0 fails to set the Secure flag on cookies, causing them to be transmitted over both HTTP and HTTPS connections. This allows cookies potentially containing sensitive session data to be intercepted by attackers on the same network, particularly in mixed HTTP/HTTPS environments or when users inadvertently access the site over HTTP.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.0.7.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify BTCPay Server versionCheck the installed version of BTCPay Server (typically accessible via the admin UI under Server Settings, or via the About page) and compare it to the affected range: version 1.0.7.0 or lowerAffected if The installed version is 1.0.7.0 or lower
-
Inspect cookie headers via HTTPAccess the BTCPay Server login page over HTTP (not HTTPS) and use browser developer tools or a tool like curl to examine the Set-Cookie headers in the HTTP responseAffected if Cookies are present in the HTTP response without the Secure attribute
-
Inspect cookie headers via HTTPSAccess the BTCPay Server login page over HTTPS and examine the Set-Cookie headers in the responseAffected if Cookies do not include the Secure flag even when set over HTTPS
-
Verify HTTP accessibilityAttempt to access the BTCPay Server over HTTP (without being redirected to HTTPS) to confirm the application accepts HTTP connectionsAffected if The application is reachable over HTTP without forcing redirect to HTTPS, allowing cookies to be transmitted unencrypted
A user is affected if their BTCPay Server version is 1.0.7.0 or lower AND cookies are being set without the Secure flag, particularly if the server is accessible over HTTP.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataConfigure the affected cookie(s) to include the Secure flag, ensuring they are only transmitted over encrypted HTTPS connections. This is typically done in the application framework's cookie configuration settings.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29248 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-29248 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data